Skip to main content

On the Upper West Side, a House Divided by Income (Redux)

Another response to a NYT article that harkens back to racist sentiments, only this time applied to the poor:

Looking over the posts, there are several consistent themes, some of which I agree with, some I abhor, and the latter are the ones I sometimes acknowledge but try and see past...

The ones I express or agree with are typically equating this to racism and abhorrent, if only because our society has become so grossly unequal. The ones that I abhor are the ones that simply assume that market reasoning is sufficient to justify treating people as second class citizens. This is aligned with the ones that question the wisdom of this subsidized or middle-income arrangements in the first place, and for this I would try to see past, acknowledging that the housing situation is itself somewhat absurd.

So what is an ideal housing administration like?

- One that actively creates affordable housing in prime areas?
- Use more of the pre-gentrified areas for mixed affordability?
- One that to some degree forces mixed housing?
- Does it remove the absurd tax breaks that wealthy enclaves receive?

Personally, I think large affordable housing areas would be great, with less leeway given to the real estate industry. Making the wealthy pay a larger share of the costs of their new homes would be wise, since the tax breaks make housing for the wealthy desirable, along with equally large tax breaks for affordable housing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming